It seems fairly obvious that Phil Turner has been on a "mission" to restore the Marree Man - and thereby, hopefully restore the tourist income on which he so obviously depends. To that end, he's even convinced one journalist he's on the right track.
Opinion - Rex Jory - Mangling the Marree Man
The claim that the re-instating of the Marree Man will increase tourism to Northern S.A. by 8% and add tourism value by $22M seems a little optimistic, to say the least.
I understand that Phil Turner is seriously intent on driving anything that might add some tourist attractiveness to an area that many people still see as pretty barren and remote - which is fully understandable, seeing as he has a vested interest in doing so.
However, the re-instating of the Marree Man without any official authority is a bold move by Phil Turner, and one which I fear will cost him accordingly.
In essence, the issues at the heart of the etching are;
1. The original etching work was an illegal act, anyway. It contravened many laws, including environmental laws and the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
The fact that the original etching was done anonymously, and with the continued aim of anonymity, shows the original constructor was aware of the highly illegal nature of his construction, and the need to avoid identification and possible penalties.
2. Re-instating the etching without approval or official authorisation, has only perpetuated the original problem.
3. I believe the original etching constructor and possibly Phil Turner as well, has taken advantage of the divisiness amongst the multiple local tribes, who are at loggerheads over control of the area around Lake Eyre - and at loggerheads of how to interpret and apply Aboriginal beliefs and religious restrictions to any proposed development - to over-ride any required official authorisation - both from the Aboriginals themselves, and from the relevant Govt Depts, to just "take matters into his own hands", and carry out the landscape work, without reference to any of the relevant groups.
The Aboriginal Heritage Act is a far-reaching piece of legislation that places the onus on any person wishing to alter the landscape in Australia, where Aboriginal title has been determined to still exist - to carry out research into the location of, and possible serious degradation or damage to, Aboriginal sacred sites - and to log the location of those sites, interpret their level of importance, and to provide written plans on how those sites will be protected under the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
The simple fact that no development plan was ever submitted, and no research into Aboriginal Heritage sites was ever carried out - in both the construction of the original etching, and in the re-instating of the etching, is something that has to be addressed - and I strongly suspect Phil Turner will be having to address this failure in front of a magistrate, in the not-too-far-distant future.